- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Collection of self-published stories that started as Usenet news postings and have since migrated to a website. A Google search finds no indication of any reliable sources to meet verifiability requirements.[1] --Allen3 talk 20:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A google groups search on soc.history.what-if shattered world returns the posts from 1999 that were referred to in the article. soc.history.what-if shattered world search results. The web page and online communities referred to are linked in the article. --CypherLH 20:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, those aren't reliable sources. Where are the magazine and newspaper articles? The (published) books written about them? There aren't any. you say? Hmm... Recury 20:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even with verified sources, I don't think these stories reach encyclopedic notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A search for shattered world in google returns the current version of the shattered world website as well as a link to a previous verison of the site. Also, Shattered World is referenced in Wikipedia's article on online alternate histories and a search of the history on this article will verify that Shattered World has been a significant part of the online alternate history community for years. Perhaps I am failing to understand what part of the article is being challenged. The usenet posts referred to do exist and were posted in 1999, as the google groups search above verifies. Shattered World is ranked #1 and #2 when searched for on google. With regards to notability, perhaps I am unclear on what rises to the level of notability to warrant an article. Shattered World is already referenced in the online alternate histories article so it was my assumption that a more detailed entry was warranted, perhaps I was mistaken — Preceding unsigned comment added by CypherLH (talk • contribs)
- The part of the article being challenged by the nomination is the article's ability to be verified by reliable sources. Bulletin boards, Usenet, wikis, or messages left on blogs are generally not accepted as reliable as there is usually no editorial control and accurate determination of a posting's true author is often not possible. Lack of reliable sources may also suggest the article is being used to promote the article's subject in an effort to achieve notability. --Allen3 talk 21:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shattered World is certainly not "mainstream" in any sense but it does have an active community of 100+ fans and the website does exist and it does show up as #1 and #2 on a google search for 'shattered world'. I thought the point of this whole thing is that even obscure topics can be documented, though I am new to this and admit that my understanding may simply be flawed.
In regards to the issue of the usenet posts, I see your point that there is no independent way to verify the direct relationship between them and the website. I will remove that sentence from the article.--CypherLH 22:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just read Wikipedia:Notability (web) and Shattered World does not appear to meet the criteria described in there. I believe the criteria are a bit too stringent and kill some of the spirit of Wiki in my opinion but I assume they were arrived at only after a consensus was reached so I'm certainly in no position to argue the point.--CypherLH 22:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless proof of meeting WP:WEB is presented. :) Dlohcierekim 18:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.